We have all watched American police or legal dramas - whether in the original version or dubbed or subtitled - and we are all familiar with and could probably recite the warning a police officer gives to a suspect as he is being handcuffed. "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law," the cop says to the villain. "You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?" ... On Tuesday, the European Commission proposed that a common warning about an equivalent set of rights, but in written form in equally simple language - and in the suspect's own tongue - be adopted across Europe.
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law," the cop says to the villain. "You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?"
...
On Tuesday, the European Commission proposed that a common warning about an equivalent set of rights, but in written form in equally simple language - and in the suspect's own tongue - be adopted across Europe.
Supreme Court backs off strict enforcement of Miranda rights [2 June 2010] The Supreme Court backed off Tuesday [1 June 2010] from strict enforcement of its historic Miranda decision, ruling that a crime suspect's words can be used against him if he fails to clearly tell police that he does not want to talk. In the past, the court said the "burden rests on the government" to show that a crime suspect had "knowingly and intelligently waived" his rights. Some police departments tell officers not to begin questioning until a suspect has waived his rights, usually by signing a waiver form. But in Tuesday's 5-4 decision, the court shifted the balance in favor of the police, saying a suspect has a duty to speak up and say he does not want to talk. Moreover, the police are "not required to obtain a waiver" of the suspect's "right to remain silent before interrogating him," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote. Read more...
[2 June 2010] The Supreme Court backed off Tuesday [1 June 2010] from strict enforcement of its historic Miranda decision, ruling that a crime suspect's words can be used against him if he fails to clearly tell police that he does not want to talk. In the past, the court said the "burden rests on the government" to show that a crime suspect had "knowingly and intelligently waived" his rights. Some police departments tell officers not to begin questioning until a suspect has waived his rights, usually by signing a waiver form. But in Tuesday's 5-4 decision, the court shifted the balance in favor of the police, saying a suspect has a duty to speak up and say he does not want to talk. Moreover, the police are "not required to obtain a waiver" of the suspect's "right to remain silent before interrogating him," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote.
Read more...
Related commentary: 08-1470 Berghuis v. Thompkins, wiki pdf, majority opinion ACS Panel Discussion: Miranda's Future, podcast, ENG Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
